Mobile phone or cell phone technology has become widely accepted by consumers throughout the world. The short message service (SMS) facility, often referred to by consumers as “texting” has in recent years also become popular, allowing subscribers to exchange messages at rates that are usually below the rate for voice communication, and allowing subscribers to receive messages without the need to dial a service to retrieve them.
Mobile phone or cell phone services are operated by telecommunications companies with subscribers gaining access to the network of a telecommunications company, either on a contract basis through which credit is extended, or on a pre-paid plan. There is usually more than one mobile network operator providing services to subscribers in any jurisdiction, and there are many mobile network operators throughout the world.
To enable subscribers of different mobile networks to communicate by SMS, the mobile network operators have reached various agreements with respect to the levying of charges. In the industry, an agreement between two mobile network operators in the same country to interconnect their respective SMS networks, for the purpose of facilitating SMS exchange between their mobile subscribers, is generally referred to as operators' inter-operator SMS (IOSMS), or inter-working SMS. Where the agreement is between mobile network operators in different countries, this is referred to as international SMS (ISMS).
Subscriber charging is either mobile originating (MO) charging, where the subscriber who sends the message is charged/billed upon sending the message, or mobile terminating (MT) charging, otherwise known as reverse billing, where the mobile subscriber receiving the message is charged upon receipt of a message.
In IOSMS, the usual revenue scheme is “sender-keep-all”, where the mobile network operator of the calling/sending subscriber keeps all of the revenue (generated from an MO message). With this arrangement, the originating mobile network operator does not share the revenue with the terminating/receiving mobile network operator. In local IOSMS in most countries, the majority of mobile network operators operate in a sender-keep-all fashion.
International SMS between operators in most countries also operate in a sender-keep-all scheme, but with exceptions. Some (receiving) operators have required MT charging; that is, charge the sending operator a particular tariff for terminating a message onto their network. ISMS MT charging is largely a measure which has been adopted to prevent or discourage unsolicited messaging or spam and also as a means of allowing operators to earn more in situations wherein there is a significant imbalance between messages received unto and sent from an operator.
The sender-keep-all system was adopted in the nascent years of text messaging since it was simple, straightforward, and text messaging (then) was not considered a significant revenue driver. But as the service matured and became more and more a part of people's lives, text messaging became an important part of a mobile network operator's service offering and consequently an important sales driver.
Text messaging between subscribers typically followed a one-to-one/tit-for-tat messaging pattern, in which subscriber A texts subscriber B, and then subscriber B replies to subscriber A. In IOSMS, this pattern has served to reinforce a sender-keep-all revenue regime, as each mobile network operator had an opportunity to earn revenue from the transactions. As text messaging matured, the situation began to change. New entrant mobile network operators began offering more aggressive pricing, options on their services. In IOSMS and ISMS, the messaging imbalance resulting from the difference in inbound (to a mobile network operator) text messaging volume compared with outbound (from that mobile network operator) became more acute. This was due to several factors, including the difference in mobile network operator pricing, disparity of purchasing power of mobile network subscribers across different countries, and in general, people's natural inclination to engage in text-based communication. For example, ISMS for US-based Filipino subscribers is relatively more affordable than it is for their compatriot Philippine-based subscribers. Consequently, message inbound traffic from the U.S. is multiple times more than message outbound from the Philippines to the U.S.
Due to this growing imbalance plus a desire to earn more from text traffic, certain mobile network operators, mostly those in the U.S. and in Europe, began to impose termination charges billed against their mobile network operator partners for messages received on their system. This prompted partner mobile network operators likewise to start imposing termination charges themselves.
Further, smaller operators and those from countries with lower disposable income likewise realized that to be able to partake in the revenues coming from higher tariff operators would actually boost their total revenues from ISMS.
More recently, some mobile network operators began offering an intra-network operator, unlimited text messaging plan, whereby subscribers can send unlimited text messages (presumably for a flat fee) to other subscribers within the same network. Such schemes have been quite successful in increasing overall ARPU (average revenue per user—per month) for the operators.
It would be ideal if mobile network operators could implement unlimited IOSMS and ISMS plans for a flat fee, pre-paid or as part of their monthly plan—thereby increasing the overall attractiveness of the mobile service to their subscribers; however, several practical difficulties have prevented this from being implemented. The primary obstacle to this is the imbalance in messaging volume between mobile network operators in different countries, and also in the same country, where some operators have launched aggressively priced services.
One problem with unlimited ISMS/IOSMS is spam or indiscriminate messaging originating from a subscriber of one mobile network operator; for example, a malicious subscriber from mobile network operator A, taking advantage of favourable rates of mobile network operator A, may spam the subscribers of mobile network operator B. Mobile network operator B has no direct control over the spammer because he is a subscriber of mobile network operator A, and worse, operator B likely derives zero revenues from subscriber A's messaging. In a sender-keep-all regime, the receiving mobile network operators may complain that they are not earning from the incoming text, that these ISMS/IOSMS messages are contributing to network congestion, and worse, may be annoying their subscribers. Further, in an IOSMS setting, the mobile network operators with the larger market shares would naturally avoid arrangements with a mobile network operators offering unlimited ISMS/IOSMS, since in reaching an arrangement they would in effect be permitting their competitors to under-price them using their own subscriber base.
Further, should operator B decide to impose termination charges billed to operator A, unlimited text messaging plans would become financially unviable for operator A or its ISMS IOSMS third party provider. Operator A may likely find themselves in a situation whereby they are paying operator B more for the incremental ARPU derived from the subscribers of operator A opting in for the unlimited plan.
In the U.S., most if not all mobile network operators, in particular, do not allow third parties (such as value-added service providers or content providers) to charge their subscribers for premium message terminating traffic without the receiving person first agreeing to such charges. (Such premium messaging services include PC-to-mobile messaging services offered by established Internet companies like Yahoo! and AOL, and in the case of the Philippines, Chikka's PC-Based text messaging service.)
This invention seeks to provide a system and method for IOSMS and/or ISMS that will overcome or ameliorate some of these problems associated with unlimited text-messaging services or (relatively) aggressive text messaging plans.
Throughout the specification, unless the context requires otherwise, the word “comprise” or variations such as “comprises” or “comprising”, will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated integer or group of integers but not the exclusion of any other integer or group of integers.